Obama’s call for transparency remains unfulfilled
The Colorado Democratic Party (CDP) is the only Democratic party in the U.S., so far, that has a plank within its platform that calls for a new 9/11 investigation. This plank (or a similar one) has been included in the platform since 2008.
Rumor has it, however, that some of the 2014 CDP Platform Committee members want to remove it, believing that claims by 9/11 skeptics have been answered. Therefore, this document was written to inform these platform committee members that our claims have not been answered, and furthermore, President Obama’s call for an “Open and Transparent Government” has been thoroughly unfulfilled regarding the events of September 11, 2001.
This document is part of a letter to the CDP Platform Committee members. It is far from complete, but it gives ample examples of how we have not had transparency regarding September 11, 2001.
We hope it will be useful to you.
The Colorado 9/11 Truth Team
Concerning the September 11, 2001, Attacks: What Are Some Ways That Obama’s Call for Transparency Has Remained Unfulfilled?
I. Lack of transparency, in general, by the 9/11 Commission Report
1. Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean concealed from the staff of the 9/11 Commission the fact that Philip Zelikow, the Commission’s executive director, had written a detailed outline of the Commission’s final report, complete with “chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings,” before the staff had its first meeting. (David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Ten Years Later, 71; original source is Philip Shenon, The Commission: What We Didn’t Know About 9/11, 388 – 389.)
Philip Zelikow, essentially a part of the Bush administration, determined which material was to be published and which was to be ignored.
Obviously, a sincere investigation does not begin with a conclusion and omit or distort evidence that contradicts that conclusion.
2. Lee Hamilton later acknowledges 935 lies by top officials to the Commission to promote the Iraq war. See (at 1:30 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PY_qM28rnA&feature=youtu.be.
3. This is a list of 36 aspects regarding the 9/11 Commission that run counter to what we would have expected of a serious investigation: http://wot-on-earth.blogspot.com/2013/10/911-commission-report-571-page-fraud.html.
4. This is a list of 115 omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission: http://www.911truth.org/the-911-commission-report-a-571-page-lie/.
II. Lack of transparency by the 9/11 Commission regarding the conclusion that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11
1. Bin Laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks:
2. Some may argue against these denials, but they cannot argue that the FBI has never indicted bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks because, according to an FBI spokesman, the FBI has “no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
3. The 9/11 Commission Report simply confirmed the Bush administration’s prior assertions that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, despite the fact that this conclusion was based upon confessions obtained by torture.
See a report by msnbc: http://web.archive.org/web/20090212035205/http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx; and for a more comprehensive report with other sources, see http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/911-commission-deceived-an-unintentional-work-of-fiction-based-on-cheneys-communist-torture-program.html.
Some points that are noteworthy from the above two links include:
- More than 25 percent of the footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report cited “evidence” based on confessions obtained by torture.
- At least four of these tortured detainees later said that they gave false information as a way to stop the torture.
- One source was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was not allowed to read.
- One of the primary sources of information for the 9/11 Commission, Abu Zubaydah, who was tortured, was known to be clinically insane and found to have no association with al Qaeda.
- Ninety of the 92 torture tapes destroyed by the CIA were related to Abu Zubayda.
- The other primary source cited by the 9/11 Commission was Kalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), who was waterboarded 183 times in one month and later stated “I make up stories,” to stop the torture. (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/06/16/report-ksm-lied-to-avoid-further-waterboarding-i-make-up-stories/)
- While being tortured, KSM falsely confessed to the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl.
- The 9/11 Commissioners themselves doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, yet kept their doubts to themselves.
III. Lack of transparency regarding the evidence of contact between intelligence agencies—of the U.S. and those of its allies—with the alleged 9/11 hijackers
1. There are 28 redacted pages of the 2002 Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) of 9/11 that purportedly show Saudi involvement with the alleged hijackers. According to one of the family members of the victims of 9/11, President Obama said to her in 2009 that he would be willing to make these pages public. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=2&.
2. For more on the redacted 28 pages as well as documented contacts between the FBI, wealthy Saudi individuals, and the alleged hijackers shortly before 9/11, see http://www.ibtimes.com/911-link-saudi-arabia-topic-28-redacted-pages-government-report-congressmen-push-release-1501202.
3. For House Resolution 428: “Urging the president to release information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States,” see https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres428/text.
4.. For many related sources, see http://911blogger.com/news/2014-02-26/us-and-its-allies-had-contact-bin-laden-and-911-hijackers-many-times-911.
5. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, communicated to members of the 9/11 Commission that the intelligence program Able Danger had identified two of the three cells responsible for 9/11 prior to the attacks, but the 9/11 Commission did not include this information in their final report.
IV. Lack of transparency regarding the air defense failures on 9/11
1. Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission strongly implies that Vice President Dick Cheney gave a stand-down order for the plane approaching the Pentagon. Because of a “snafu,” according to the representatives of the National Archive, this video may have been “lost” and so is not part of the 9/11 Commission video archive. However, it can be seen on YouTube.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y; and http://www.911truth.org/the-mineta-testimony-911-commission-exposed/; and see this detailed article http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html.
2. NORAD changed its timeline for the air defense on 9/11 twice and the 9/11 Commission changed it yet again; the 9/11 Commission believed that the Pentagon may have been deliberately misleading the Commission and considered referring the matter to the Justice Department.
3. An E-4B plane (a state-of-the-art military flying command post) was seen by numerous witnesses and filmed by CNN, flying above the DC area before the Pentagon was hit. Did the Government have the foreknowledge to have an E-4B arrive over the D.C. restricted air space at the time of the attack? Why did the 9/11 Commission leave this out of their final report?
V. Lack of transparency regarding the collapses of the three World Trade Center Buildings
1. NIST has provided an analysis of the collapse of WTC 7 that is not only flawed and improbable, but fraudulent. See letter from attorney Dr. William Pepper to the Office of the Inspector General regarding this matter: http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf.
Quote from this letter: It was only some years after the issuance of the NIST Report that drawings were released in response to a FOIA request, revealing that critical structural features in Building 7 were inexplicably missing from consideration in the Report….With the inclusion of these critical features, NIST’s probable collapse sequence must be ruled out unambiguously.
2. While NIST has conceded that WTC 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration for more than 100 feet, and while Shyam Sunder, NIST lead investigator for the collapse of WTC 7, correctly asserted that free fall cannot happen in a natural building collapse, NIST still refuses to investigate the possibility of controlled demolition, the only possible explanation for this free fall.
3. The scientific standard of sharing methodology and data so that other scientists can study it has still not been met by NIST for their analysis of the destruction of World Trade Center 7. Ironically, in response to FOIA requests for this data, the Director of NIST has actually claimed that to release such data might “jeopardize public safety.”
4. For further testimony from 29 structural engineers regarding the flawed analysis of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7, see http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf.
These concerns have not been answered by FEMA or NIST.
5. The destruction of World Trade Center Buildings (WTC) 1, 2, and 7 exhibit all of the characteristics of controlled demolition by explosives and none of the characteristics of fire. No fire, however severe, has ever caused a fire-protected steel-framed high-rise building to collapse — with the alleged exception of these three skyscrapers on 9/11. According to NIST, it was primarily the office fires, not the plane impacts, that caused the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Furthermore, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.
NIST has ignored the evidence of controlled demolition by not addressing these characteristics. For a detailed analysis of the characteristics of controlled demolition and how they apply to WTC 1, 2, and 7 see a wealth of other materials at:
6. Independent and renowned scientists have published in a peer-reviewed journal that large amounts of tiny iron spheres and trace amounts of unignited nanothermite, a high-tech explosive, were found in the WTC dust. The iron spheres have been shown to be the by-product of the ignited nanothermite. Nonetheless, NIST has refused to test for explosives or “exotic accelerants” (thermite in particular) as called for by the standard of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921; especially see the standard for “high-order” building destruction (NFPA 921 18.3.2). Significantly, to date the aforementioned journal article has been unchallenged by peer review. The article can be accessed at: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm; and it is summarized here:
VI. Lack of transparency of the 9/11 Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding insider trading just before 9/11
Evidence of insider trading in the stock market is a well known tool used by investigators for spotting foreknowledge of a future event, and therefore apprehending criminals. Shortly after 9/11, there was commentary in the press that persons had made enormous profits from foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks by an unprecedented rise in “put options” on American and United Airlines stock in the days immediately before 9/11, as well as stock of other companies adversely affected by the 9/11 attacks.
However, the SEC stated: “the trading was consistent with a legitimate trading strategy.” See http://nsnbc.me/2013/09/11/911-insider-trading-revisited/.
The 9/11 Commission then asserted: “Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions…. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” (The 9/11 Commission Report, p.172 and p. 499 n.130)
This circular argument by the 9/11 Commission starts without investigation with the conclusion that al Qaeda alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, instead of pursuing a real investigation that might lead to other responsible parties.
Nevertheless, scientific papers by independent econometricians have published studies concluding that the occurrence of very unusual trades shortly before 9/11 were not the result of “legitimate trading strategy,” but that they revealed high probabilities of insider trading—and therefore foreknowledge. There has been no governmental or professional challenge to these investigations.
When challenged to produce the records by an FOIA request, the SEC responded:
“This letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the September 11 (9/11) Commission Report. (…) We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.” See http://nsnbc.me/2013/09/11/911-insider-trading-revisited/.
The above list is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many issues regarding the 9/11 attacks for which we have not had transparency, such as the destruction at the Pentagon (evidence for explosives within the building), the demise of United 93 over Pennsylvania, the gagging of FBI agents and other Federal employees, such as Sibel Edmonds, who had crucial information prior to 9/11.
In spite of much information not included here, we hope you will see that there is great need for transparency regarding the 9/11 attacks which have been the justification for NSA spying, loss of civil liberties, ever-increasing tax dollars spent on a fraudulent “unending Global War on Terror,” resulting in the deaths, wounding, and displacement of millions of our fellow humans.